British bloody justice



Prompt to chatgpt: 'The British are prone to witchhunts, is this part of a bigger problem, does it involve old school patriarchy and misguided, mistaken collusion that ignores or deliberately misinterprets evidence? Is it almost all ad hominem?'

The tendency toward witch hunts, both historically and in some modern contexts, can often be rooted in complex social dynamics, including patriarchy, power structures, and fear-driven groupthink. 

In historical cases like the witch hunts in Britain (and other parts of Europe), many of the issues were linked to social, religious, and political fears. Women, especially those who were independent, unconventional, or who could not conform to societal norms, were often the targets, reflecting patriarchal structures that sought to control and marginalize women.

The social dynamics of witch hunts also involved the misuse of authority, [misfeasance] ignorance, and a lack of critical thinking. 

Ad hominem attacks—dismissing or attacking individuals rather than addressing the substance of their arguments—often played a significant role in these events, as people were accused based on personal grievances, superstition, or other irrational reasons.

In modern contexts, some argue that certain types of social or political "witch hunts" are driven by a combination of old biases, emotional responses, and a tendency to scapegoat individuals or groups. When evidence is ignored or manipulated, it may suggest a deep-rooted issue of collective denial, emotionality overriding reason, and sometimes even a desire to maintain control by certain power structures.

In short, while witch hunts can be seen as stemming from old-school patriarchal and fear-based tendencies, they also point to a broader issue of how societies can become fixated on certain narratives, dismiss contrary evidence, and attack individuals instead of addressing the underlying issues.


Chatgpt and Liz Lucy Robillard April 15, 2025





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Witchhunt

From my upcoming memoir: 'My son suffers from severe autism or possibly Angelman syndrome (which wasn't definitively excluded when he underwent genetic testing). As a concerned parent, I reached out to several specialists in the field of autism, desperate to know how best to support him. In 1994, when my son was two, I started an information service called Autistic Information Matters to seek answers, provide support, and share facts. After much difficulty with professionals—including a Professor Ben Sacks who cruelly suggested I send my two-year-old to an institution (I told him to get out)—I discovered Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). At the time, I believed it might be a miracle cure that could help my son begin speaking. However, after extensive research and insights from other parents, I came to realize that autism is an umbrella term, encompassing a variety of conditions rather than a single disorder. (I have written more about this elsewhere.) During this time, I wa...
Read more

Evidence Against Trans?

  chatgpt & liz lucy robillard, April 21st, 2025 It's natural to want to protect women from harm, especially from serious threats like rape. Some argue that to prevent even one assault, trans women (biological males) should be excluded from female-only spaces like toilets and prisons.  While this comes from a place of caution, it doesn’t hold up under evidence or ethical scrutiny. *Studies consistently show that inclusive policies do not increase assault rates in restrooms or changing rooms* Trans women using female spaces *does not* correlate with higher risks of violence against cisgender women according to studies.  The idea that cis men might pretend to be trans to access women’s areas is *extremely rare* and laws already exist to punish such behavior.  Are those laws effective enough? On the other hand, trans women face high rates of violence when forced into male-designated spaces, especially in prisons or public areas.  Denying them access often puts ...
Read more

Honouring Abused Women

  The idea that vulnerability disqualifies you from safety is perverse. It’s a cruel inversion of morality, peddled by the very professions sworn to protect. Social workers (not all, but enough to matter), lawyers, psychiatrists, police—these institutions too often treat a traumatised woman as a nuisance, a liability, or worse, a fantasist. If you flinch, you’re dramatic. If you weep, you’re unstable. If you speak up, you’re paranoid. This grotesque logic renders a woman’s suffering not only invisible, but suspect. They do not ask, What happened to her? They ask, What is wrong with her? It’s psychiatry’s favourite bait-and-switch. Diagnoses fly like confetti—borderline, histrionic, treatment-resistant—as though medical jargon could smother the stench of misogyny. And the legal profession is no better. A woman under siege is told to document everything while her stalker moves freely, slipping through legal loopholes like grease through fingers. The solution is not to plead more pre...
Read more